Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/804/2001 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 804 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
==============================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
M
B PARIKH FINSTOCKS LTD.
Versus
SHRIJI
INVESTMENT AND ANOTHER
======================================
Appearance
:
MR AJ YAGNIK for the
applicant
MR TARESH J BHATTJI for Opponent No.1
MR MRUGESH JANI
for Opponent No.2
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
Date
: 28/02/2006
ORAL
ORDER
This
revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is filed by the applicant challenging the order passed by the
District Judge, Vadodara dated 26.04.2001 below Exhibit 13 in
Arbitration Petition No.249 of 2000. By the said order, the learned
District Judge has dismissed the said application at Exhibit 13
submitted by the present applicant. The aforesaid Arbitration
Petition has been preferred by respondent No.1 herein on the ground
that the applicant had entered into an agreement in connection with
purchase and sale of shares with the original opponent No.1 (present
applicant herein). It is the case of the original applicant
(respondent No.1 herein) that a dispute arose between the parties on
the subject of payment of transactions and delivery of shares and the
opponent No.1 herein referred grievances on his part by application
to the N.S.E. The N.S.E. was pleased to appoint one of the
arbitrators from the panel to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties i.e. opponent no.1 herein and the present applicant. A sole
arbitrator one Shri G. Venkataramani gave his award on 14.8.2000.
The opponent No.1 herein thereafter gave an application to the
District Court, Vadodara for setting aside the award on 21.11.2000.
The said application was filed against the present applicant as well
as respondent No.2 herein.
In
the aforesaid application before the District Court, the present
applicant filed an application at Exhibit 13 requesting the learned
District Judge, Vadodara to decide the preliminary issue regarding
the jurisdiction of the Court before deciding the main application.
The learned District Judge rejected the said application by his order
dated 26.4.2001. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant
herein has filed this revision application under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
The
case of the present applicant before the District Court in the said
application at Exhibit 13 was that the District Court at Vadodara has
no jurisdiction to decide the application of opponent No.1 herein and
that said Arbitration Petition No.249 of 2000 was required to be
rejected in limine. It is alleged in the application that both the
parties are having their business at Bombay and Vadodara Court has no
jurisdiction to decide the application. A copy of the application
Exhibit 13 is annexed at page 4 in the present proceedings. It is
also averred in the said application that the arbitrator declared the
award after hearing both the sides and against that the original
applicant before the District Court had not filed any appeal or had
taken up any proceedings for setting aside the said award. It is the
case of the present applicant in the said application Exhibit 13
that since the award has been declared after following the procedure
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the said award cannot be set
aside and such application is not maintainable before the District
Court. It is alleged that respondent No.1 ? original applicant
was required to prefer appeal before the Bombay High Court. Under
the circumstances, it was prayed that the said question of
jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue as according to the
present applicant, the District Court at Vadodara has no jurisdiction
to decide the application in question.
The
learned District Judge, however, rejected the application on the
ground that the decision on the said application will decide the fate
of the entire proceedings. The District Court found that in order
to find out the jurisdiction, the Court will have to consider the
facts of the case and will have to take into consideration the
evidence, documentary as well as oral, submitted by the parties.
The District Court found that in order to arrive at a final decision
in the matter, the evidence is required to be considered. The Court
found that instead of deciding the question by framing a preliminary
issue, it would be better to have a decision on all the points
arising in the proceedings. The learned Judge accordingly decided to
hear all the issues together including the question about
maintainability.
It
is required to be noted that in its limited jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code this Court would not like to
interfere with such an interlocutory order as the District Court has
kept the said issue pending and has decided to adjudicate all the
points together. Ultimately, the Court after considering the
evidence on record may decide whether such an application is
maintainable or whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide such
application. Under the circumstances, instead of entertaining this
revision application, the learned District Judge is directed to
decide the main application expeditiously and may decide all the
issues together and may dispose of the same finally within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. It is
required to be noted that when the District Court has decided to hear
all the issues together, it cannot be said that he has committed any
error of jurisdiction which calls for interference of this Court in
its limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure
Code. Under the circumstances, subject to the direction issued to
the District Court to decide the pending application within
stipulated time, this revision application is rejected. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(P.B.Majmudar,
J.)
*mohd
Top